Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

Quote:

it's clear that you're picking and choosing which "judicial activism" you like, and that which you don't.

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

What do you mean 'marriage must mean something'? Are you saying that if gay marriage is allowed, then all of a sudden marriage doesn't mean anything anymore? That's absurd. Marriage is still the legal joining and lifetime commitment of two people who love each other, whether gay people are allowed to marry each other or not.

As for your last comment...you're going against your own point. There are things written in the constitution that should already provide that gay marriage is permitted, even though that right isn't spelled out verbatim. "All men are created equal." "Equal protection." Etc. Furthermore, gay marriage is not outlawed verbatim by the constitution either. This is a matter of interpretation. You always say the legislative branch should be the branch to make these decisions and not the judicial branch. But the legislative branch writes new law or gets rid of existing law. That's not what's needed here. There's no law against gay marriage, technically speaking, and there's already grounds in the constitution that should allow for gay marriage, so this is a matter of interpretation, not legislation. It is perfectly within the bounds and rights of the judicial branch to look at the constitution or a state constitution and say, 'hey, you've been reading this wrong, it allows for this, court adjourned.'

Again, under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals already have equal protection as they are just as free to marry as a heterosexual is. This is not about equal protection but about redefining marriage.

is this something you really want to encourage?

Quote:

But, as our laws do grant certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, I feel equal protection arguments are germane. Which is why I support civil unions (many religious conservative do not.) You then say civil unions are "2nd class" or somehow inferior. I say no, just different. The term Marriage must mean something or it means nothing.

whites had white schools, blacks had black schools.

why must you maintain your assumption of superiority? is that how you define marriage? as "better than a civil union!" i know that some heterosexuals -- as do racist, for example -- derive a portion of personal pride in not being a member of a discriminated against minority. "i might be a criminal, but at least i'm no faggot."

but is this really a good thing? is this much of a "defense" of marriage at all?

could you show me how, exactly, the "meaning" of marriage has been destroyed in Masschusetts? please cite specific examples and show me the many straight marriages that have been ended by the apathy and disinterest caused by the lessening of the status of a heteorsexual relationship by reducing it to the level of a mere homosexual coupling. and cite your sources, please. after all, this isn't wild speculation based on fear, ignorance, and loathing on your part. you can back this up. you have real examples. now's your chance -- go for it.

Quote:

How you can apply the term "judicial activism" to a constructivist ruling that simply confirms an enumerated constitutional right (that means you can actually find it there) is beyond me.

on this we agree. how can you throw "judicial activism" that confirms the right to equal protection under the law.

Fair enough. I know it's poor form to presume to speak for some one else. There was no offense intended, and I hope none was taken.

Not a problem, you gave it a try and clearly stated you were only trying to make my argument in my absence. You did a better job than I could do making a liberal argument. Here's what I would add.

While I have every right to seek laws that reflect my own moral believes, as does everyone, they must be done consistent to the form of government we live under. A constitutional democracy. Our constitution not only enumerates protected rights, but clearly defines the roles of the three branches of government. So a court that "makes law" by "discovering a right" is guilty of a double no-no.

Quote:

I'd to probe your argument a little bit though. Would it be fair to say then that if the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed (which it might not have if the Southern states hadn't been represented by those sympathetic to Reconstruction) you would then oppose the actions of the Supreme Court during the Civil Rights era because the rights would be discovered and rather then restored?

Again, MLK's "Promised Land" was one that existed from our founding.

Quote:

(from I Have A Dream speech)
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men -- yes, black men as well as white men -- would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

This promise was also written into law after Reconstruction with the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Sadly the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to strengthen the 1875 law, was instead used to weaken it. And this was done through JUDICAL ACTIVISM and the discovery of "separate but equal."

While it would certainly be fair to say that liberals pushed civil rights during the 60's over the objection of many conservatives (many of whom were Southern Democrats.) It would be wrong to credit these advances to judicial activism. Restoring "promised" rights isn't activism, especially when acting in tandem with the Executive and Legislative branches.

Quote:

And how would you argue that the rights of blacks and whites to go to school together or to eat in the same restaurant or to marry each other are protected by the 14th Amendment but the rights of gays to marry are not?

It would be like arguing against separate public bathrooms for males and females in the year 2008 because 60 years ago, in much of the country, there were separate public bathrooms for Blacks and Whites. I suppose there might be good reasons to have unisex bathrooms... but that would not be one of 'em.

What do you mean 'marriage must mean something'? Are you saying that if gay marriage is allowed, then all of a sudden marriage doesn't mean anything anymore? That's absurd. Marriage is still the legal joining and lifetime commitment of two people...

Where do you come up with that restriction?

Quote:

As for your last comment...you're going against your own point. There are things written in the constitution that should already provide that gay marriage is permitted, even though that right isn't spelled out verbatim. "All men are created equal." "Equal protection."

The state has a right to limit rights. Free speech has it's limits, felons can be denied the right to vote or own firearms. The state can also define the terms of qualification for any kind of license. Medical, driving and yes, marriage.

Quote:

Furthermore, gay marriage is not outlawed verbatim by the constitution either.

Correct. If it is silent on the definition of marriage than how can a court give us one? The answer is, legally they can't, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. That the constitution is silent -- that the right isn't inalienable, should mean that it is up to the people to decide and we do that through our representatives or in some cases, ballot initiative.

Quote:

There's no law against gay marriage, technically speaking, and there's already grounds in the constitution that should allow for gay marriage, so this is a matter of interpretation, not legislation.

But it hasn't been recognized. And the mayor of S.F. was breaking the law when he was marrying couples last year. And several states do have constitutions recognizing only man-women marriage.

Quote:

It is perfectly within the bounds and rights of the judicial branch to look at the constitution or a state constitution and say, 'hey, you've been reading this wrong, it allows for this, court adjourned.'

Right, court adjourned, end of discussion. It's We The Judges not We The People.

i guess it's fine to discriminate on the basis of gender -- since any fool can see that men and women are different -- but certainly not on race, because no fool would ever make the mistake of thinking that blacks and whites are different, or 3/5ths of a person, or that there was a biblical reason for the creation of the different races.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This was why the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were necessary. The framers of the Constitution were obviously not in agreement that black men and white men were equal. Many of them believed that black people were inherently inferior, ordained so by nature (God), and thus not deserving of citizenship or even liberty. And look what it ultimately took to get those amendments passed! This is why Sean's question is important.

after all, this isn't wild speculation based on fear, ignorance, and loathing on your part. you can back this up. you have real examples. now's your chance -- go for it.

why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."

why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."

"breeders" is a term i've used ironically. and it's kind of cute. besides, we need something to counter the "faggots, burn in hell."

i guess i'm being ungrateful. it is magnanimous of straight people to even look me in the eye and shake my hand, let alone accord my fake relationship based on perverted lust any sort of status.

it's so easy to feel weary, to say, "yes, the black could get on the bus, why did the have to sit in the front? everyone on that bus was going to arrive at the same destination at the same time. it's just a stupid seat on the bus. who cares who's in the front or in the back? whites have always sat in the front, blacks have always sat in the back, why change that? it doesn't make any practical difference, does it?"

anyway, i'll set aside the 1049 tax breaks. here's why it matters, and in language written by someone i know you've respected in the past:

Quote:

The 'M-Word' Why It Matters To Me

What's in a name?

Perhaps the best answer is a memory.

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home - Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was brought up to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What matters is not how far you go in life, how much money you make, how big a name you make for yourself. What really matters is family, and the love you have for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness, your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that puts everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a non-emotional context; but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings one day might be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema - even, in the words of the Church I attended every Sunday, evil. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day: "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

So, like many gay men of my generation, I retreated. I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in school-work, in the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a "most important day" in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family I had to somehow not be me. So like many gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books, night after night, while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships, and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years later to tell others, and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude - and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship - it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my twenties and thirties what my straight friends found out in their teens. But even then, my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: so when are you going to get married? When is your relationship going to be public? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one - no one - has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my own past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family any more. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."

and as a follow up, i think this is a great post.

it tells me what it is you don't understand, which is that i'm a person too. not a virtual person, a person. and i'm every bit your equal, and deserving of the same rights, protections, and respect that you are accorded.